prowla

The conclusion (from the mods), as I read it, was that the existing site rules already forbid it, but items will only be removed if someone alerts them.

If they use Fender parts then the neck comes with a Fender logo on the headstock. But I think someone posted that they don't.

My guess is the gain is the money at the point of exchange, independent of any overall p&l considerations, ie. before you had an item and no money, after you have gained money. I expect the legal term is established.

I've only got three, but they are all great instruments and I wouldn't chose any other bass on the planet over them. I've seen some of the stories of folks issues, but haven't had dealings with Rickenbacker myself (mine were all bought used); as far as the UK goes, you wouldn't have to deal with Rickenbacker for warranty issues anyway.

Thanks for coming back with that reasoned update - my opinion of you has just done a 180! I wonder about how it affects Fender; their position in the guitar world is similar to IBM's in the PC world; they've defined the standard for interchangeable guitar parts, but now anybody can make competing parts (and they seem lax at chasing up licensing deals). I don't know if seeing the logo on fakes is a kind of free advertising. As far as the brand goes, my first reaction to seeing a "Fender" guitar or part is one of suspicion - is it genuine? I think they need a thriving used market to support their new sales, so I don't think that perception is health for them.

I think the "gain" in question is the money they are receiving.

I think I gave my opinion on that earlier.

Great - it leave the Rics for me!

I've tried a couple of times, acknowledged that the current rules & position cover it, but there keep being new (or should I say repeated old) questions. (Some folks certainly seem to be quite vociferous in saying they don't give two hoots about it!)

You seem to be fixating on questions you are chucking into the mix. Thinking about it, I know two people who've bought fake Rics; one via gumtree and one from "a friend". There is a Squier with a fake Fender logo in the list I posted earlier. I may know people who have got fake Fenders, but I don't have the info to hand. Why do you keep asking these questions? Do you think they excuse the act of selling fakes?

No - you are inventing your own definitions. The trademark law (quoted) identifies the issue as putting an unauthorised trademark on an item; that's what makes it a fake. You don't have the opt-out of saying it's not genuine (which is just another way of saying it's a fake).

Did you see the recent ebay thread? Does it matter whether I personally know them? I do know someone who bought a Rickenbacker copy thinking it was a real one.

Are you saying that no fake instruments, ie. ones bearing fake logos, have ever been sold via this site?

It is a question challenging a strawman; people do build strawmen just to give themselves something to argue against. The fact is that that it is the act of selling a fake logo'd instrument which is against the law and whether it was done having disclosed it or not is irrelevant.

You may be right, but people do buy Fender logo'd Squiers thinking they are Fenders.

I've quoted you an instance where someone bought one, but you don't seem to want to accept that. As for the instances of attempted deceit, I can't say. But it's irrelevant anyway, as the above shows, it's the act of selling the item which is there in black and white. I don't know why you keep on banging on about the same question, which you seem to think somehow trumps the law itself.

It is against the law to kill, but a lot of murders do happen.

I guess you haven't read what the mods wrote; the situation is that the rules already cover it, but they moderate with a light touch. Nice use of the "we" there, though.

As far as the law goes, whether there is a disclaimer is irrelevant; the law states: A person commits an offence who with a view to gain for himself or another, or with intent to cause loss to another, and without the consent of the proprietor— (a)applies to goods or their packaging a sign identical to, or likely to be mistaken for, a registered trade mark, or (b)sells or lets for hire, offers or exposes for sale or hire or distributes goods which bear, or the packaging of which bears, such a sign, or (c)has in his possession, custody or control in the course of a business any such goods with a view to the doing of anything, by himself or another, which would be an offence under paragraph (b). It doesn't matter whether they presented it as the genuine article or not; the simple fact that it carries a trademarked logo is what the law covers. The penalty is: A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable— (a)on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both; (b)on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, or both. Constantly challenging for an instance where a person has sought to sell an item pretending that it was something else is a red herring (oh lawd - another fish!); the issue is in selling the item itself.

I quoted you the example of someone who bought it thinking it was a Fender, because it had a Fender logo.

Agreed, so why's it got a Fender logo?

What trademark is that infringing?

You keep saying there hasn't been an instance, so I keep quoting you the same instance; at the point in time he bought it, the person thought it was a Fender.

But a bit heavy, sometimes.

Someone on this thread bought a Limelight thinking it was a Fender.